“Live now, pay later,” might have easily supplanted the national motto of “E Pluribus Unum,” instead of its supposed replacement, “In God we trust.”
Aside from the obvious reference to unearned hedonism and individual irresponsibility, it should be noted that governments derived from such careless individuals as the “live now” crowd can bring all of us even closer to being debt slaves. Yet without even the notion of pleasure as an advance reward to leadership, the function of government runs unabated. One might find it differently in private enterprise however, according to Jack Spencer:
“In the private sector, businesses can’t ignore economic reality by giving in to unrealistic union demands. They open their books and say, “look, we’ve had a lousy couple of years. We have to cut back or go under. We can’t give you what you want.” That reality check doesn’t apply to government, which is always bargaining with other people’s money. Those “other people” are us, the taxpayers. Over the decades, when faced with unpopular choices of cutting services or raising taxes, government officials have given unions most of what they asked for and left the tab to be picked up by future generations.”
In a nutshell, that is it.
I’ve been there. In fact, I have been in both places simultaneously. At the business owned by my wife and I, folks haven’t received raises in three years, yet as a county commissioner in 2012 I was present while union employees received automatic 1.5% increases. It made no sense to me that it should be so easy for a nearly unanimous Republican board to approve of such a thing, but over the years we have discovered that fiscal insanity is a scourge that has set upon both Capulet AND House Montague.
And it is generational too. So much so, that entire infrastructures are collapsing from the weight that has long had its supports removed. Pensions as a part of governmental financial negligence as referenced in the Cap Con piece above are responsible for cities literally falling apart, and legitimate public safety services being eliminated.
Alaska’s governor Sean Parnell has traditionally had a Christmas Video out. The newest expected anytime
Titled “Seasons Greetings,” Indiana governor Mike Pence uses “Christmas” no fewer than 6 times in three full paragraphs. Add a “Blessing” or two, and we Definitely get the message!
Florida’s Rick Scott posts a “Christmas” message celebrating “.. a time to celebrate the blessings that are bestowed upon us and the birth of our Lord.”
My Goodness, Wyoming‘s SOS has “Merry Christmas” and a story to go with it right up on the state’s website. The Governor, Matt Mead even posts an audio “Merry Christmas.”
Compassion does not necessarily equal ethical behavior.
What someone might call “the right thing to do,” might be anything but that. Especially if it requires that a crime be perpetrated in order to follow through. Most acts of compassion by an individual cannot be questioned. It is self sacrifice; or giving, that heals, nurtures, grows, etc. It becomes a very different act when perpetrated through coercion upon some for the benefit of others.
What better way to insure higher prices, less competition, and bigger bureaucracies than to pass the so-called “MainStreet Fairness Act”?
A letter being sent today to the Michigan Congressional Delegation makes the following claims:
“The signatories consist of a wide spectrum of constituencies, including small business owners, members of state retailers associations and chambers of commerce, local elected officials, and consumers, all who want to see this commonsensehighly oppressive solution signed into law.”
“This is a critical issue for small businesses. They not only struggle to match the tax-freeShipping and logistics added prices their customers can find online, but also frequently find themselves in the frustrating position of having their stores used as showrooms by online shoppers. Their time and resources are being used up to make sales for their out-of-state competitors.”
“Opponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act have tried to argue that it imposes a new tax on consumers. But that is simply not true. The Marketplace Fairness Act will impose no new tax or tax increase of any kind, but merely create a method that states and communities can use to collect taxes they are already owed.An incredible bureaucratic nightmare for low volume sellers who are struggling to deal with increasing regulatory conditions already. For over two decades, the Internet sales tax loophole has prevented these taxing entities from receiving the legitimate revenue they need to fund essential public services for our residents leaving a revenue hole that taxpayers have had to fill.”
Strike out emphasis and editing mine.
It is an increase in the cost of business. An increase in the complication of business. An Increase in the growth of government. An increase in prices as the big box stores and larger internet retailers regain their advantage over the mom and pop enterprises.
Its cronyism. Pure and simple. BIG MONEY pushing the little guy out, and using the hammer of government to do it. Because he keeps competition in place.
I have said before, that there IS a way to solve this, and for the states who collect sales tax to get their revenues, but this cluster foxtrot is not a good path. Any congressman worth his or her salt would recognize a disaster in the making for what it is.
SHOT: @RepGaryPeters: We must act to prevent student loan rates from doubling July 1. Find out how an increase would affect MI families: Uhhhh… .
CHASER: Gary Peters Voted Against A Bill To Extend A Lower Rate For Student Loans. “Passage of the bill that would tie student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note rate. Interest rates on all federal student loans (except Perkins loans) issued on or after July 1, 2013 would be set each year at the 10-year Treasury note plus 2.5 percent. Rates for graduate and parent PLUS loans would be set at the 10-year note plus 4.5 percent. Overall interest rates would be capped at 8.5 percent and 10.5 percent, respectively.” (H.R. 1911, CQ Vote #183: Passed 221-198: R 217-8; D 4-190, 5/23/13, Peters Voted Nay)
If Gary Peters was actually worried about student loan rates, why did he oppose a bill to prevent the rates from doubling for Michigan students and then hide it from voters?
The question of whether or not to ‘allow’ marriage to persons who identify based on their activities is absurd.
Is that not what the supreme court is being asked to validate? In the case before our Nation’s highest court, the justices are being asked to determine whether California’s 2008 Proposition 8 as enacted by voters is constitutional. they are being asked to either affirm the decision of United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who overturned it on August 4, 2010; his argument being a violation of both the Due Process clause, and Equal Protections clause of the 14th amendment.
A inaccurate understanding of the 14th amendment if ever there was one.
Due Process guarantees a process under which something might be taken. It allows the imposed upon person or class to prepare a defense or answer to actions being used to deprive an individual, or group, a particular thing. It also requires law to be sufficiently understandable or substantive.
So is language prohibiting marriage between same sexes vague or understandable?
The ballot text reading “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.“ should be considered clear. Based upon that, voters by a 52-48% margin agreed to it. The motivations of the voters nor understanding of the full ramifications of passage cannot be legitimately parsed by a court and if so, under only the most subjective terms. Being clearly stated, the language defines well enough the result of passing such a measure.
The other possible Due Process violation is the depriving from one class by law; something to which it is entitled, or has a right to. Jim Crow laws which forbid public services that whites enjoyed, to blacks, would be a classic and easily understood example. The argument was then presumably, heterosexual partners enjoy a recognition of marriage, not afforded to homosexual couples. In fact the conclusion by the judge:
“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation”
And he then uses an explanation of Due process, as that which
“protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. “
Except, there is no intrusion.
The “Right To Marry” as demonstrated by the citations in the decision, has been recognized. However, Judge Vaughn purposefully sought to ignore the more broadly accepted definition of marriage, which would have settled the matter without further argument; the part being that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Plaintiffs in the case were essentially arguing that the judiciary must redefine that which has thousands of years of tradition, and has no reason to be changed except to suit their desired outcome; one that voters in the state of California deemed to be illegitimate.
The Plaintiffs were never denied due process, as their arguments were heard, and simply rebuked as non conforming to the definition they wished to have assigned to their relationships. They were never denied equal protections, as they too could exercise marriage, which by definition is a covenant between a single man and a single woman; but not something they ‘desired’. They could still seek another of opposite sex for marriage as anyone else might.
The burden of reaching any particular designation rests squarely upon the person seeking it. If ‘Marriage’ is what a woman wants, then there is nothing that government can do to prevent her from seeking and marrying a man; and a man likewise seeking a woman for said purpose. No unfair burden has been placed on the persons seeking marriage, except that for it to be recognized that they should be of opposite gender. Their rights are IDENTICAL to those who would naturally seek out such a relationship.
Because calling it marriage doesn’t automatically make it so. No more than calling me “Dr. Gillman. ”
I haven’t earned the title. I haven’t the prerequisite skills, or knowledge, yet under the redefining of institutions nothing like this should be off the table. Its my ‘RIGHT’ to be a doctor. I demand my title! Oh and by the way, Catholics are Jews, and Jews are Catholics. And any freak who thinks they can sing can be called Lady Gaga. And while we are at it, Dennis Lennox is a lion tamer. No experience necessary, just toss him in there, because defining him as such makes it so. No really.. do that, and I buy the argument.
Right?
The judge in his ruling is attempting to DEFINE marriage based on his own subjective analysis, when it’s recipe has been a clearly established static since before the destruction of Sodom. It simply IS what it IS. Up is up, down is down, and water is wet. Imaginative claims that redefine our language, and thus, our cultural norms, do not become more relevant because we are more accepting or tolerant. Words have meaning, and in this case, it is no different because of an immature refusal to accept what it is.
Immaturity so quickly displayed with the language used toward anyone who might challenge the assertion that homosexuality is normal, and particularly now as rational people decline to agree with a broad brush of definitions re-casting standards in our culture, for the sake of the 2%. Displayed too easily when temper tantrums might well be celebrated by media outlets, and make great reporting. Immaturity and name calling tantrums that hardly advance any socially redeeming discussions. Should we craft policy and change our language to suit those who throw them?
Additionally, under Judge Vaughn’s ruling, the right to marry carries over into other bizarre possibilities. His opinion and published claim of “irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” might well meet a new threshold of tolerance someday when a judge who uses Vaughn’s decision as precedent, declares his own claim of “irrational classification on the basis of mammalian orientation” with a man or woman in love with their dog, or wildebeest.
Commentary by Kenneth A, a witness to the events: On the morning of April 8th, in the Circuit Court of Midland County, the Department of Environmental Quality had scheduled a hearing date and time for their Submitted Motions. The Department of Environmental Quality was the moving party.
At the Scheduled time of 10:30 Am, the State of Michigan, sitting as the Department of Environmental Quality did not show for the hearing IT had scheduled.
The Plaintiff then moved for a Default on the moving party which is and was the State of Michigan sitting as the Department of /Environmental Quality.
Stephen J. Carras the presiding Judge in response to the Motion for Default, stated he would adjourn Court for Ten Minutes to afford the MISSING moving party “time to show”.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, whilst sitting in Chambers under the color of a “ten minute recess”, the presiding Judge moved an ex parte communication to the missing Defendant to discuss a substantive issue.
This ex parte communication was a telephone call made to the missing moving party, the State of Michigan..
This fact of the ex parte communication by telephonic contact was discovered following the questionable actions of the presiding judge later in the day by the party Plaintiff.
Upon Returning to the Court Room, the Presiding Judge stated “As a Courtesy” to the missing moving party, the State of Michgian; he would reschedule the hearing that said Defendant had failed to attend.
The Judge mentioned in a round about off handed way that the Missing Moving Party had stated it thought the hearing time was for 2 pm. How would a Presiding Judge know that fact, unless he had discussed the issue ex parte in Chambers during the Ten Minute Recess with the missing moving party!
The actions of the Presiding Judge granted the delinquent moving party a procedural and tactical advantage, for as a matter of law, said moving party should have been defaulted for failure to properly prosecute its action.
The Michigan Rules of Court are clearly written wherein the actions of the Presiding Judge in this instant case are at best questionable, and at its worst a deliberate action by a presiding judicial officer to knowingly violate the Michigan Rules of Court as clearly annotated in the Code of Judicial Conduct , Cannon 3(4)(a)(i)& (ii).
The failure of the moving party to attend ITS Scheduled hearing is a substantive issue.
The moving party, The State of Michigan, who failed to show, is the Party that pays a large percentage of the presiding Judge’s Salary. This action of the presiding judge to knowingly hold ex parte communications on a substantive issue brings to mind a point annotated in “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
All stand equal in the law, unless they are the State of Michigan, who in the judicial eyes of the Circuit Court in Midland County is more equal than others! By Kenneth A. Ration theionian@charter.net
We’ve all seen the motivational posters that truly inspire excellence.
Even a ‘De-motivational’ line has appeared inspiring laughter from all who recognize their own weaknesses, and failings. Even the low resolution versions of those became ‘viral’ for a time, and caused many to try and duplicate based on their own version of irony and truth telling. Alas, we are not immune to the allure of entertainment with the truth, and nothing but the truth.
“Live now, pay later,” might have easily supplanted the national motto of “E Pluribus Unum,” instead of its supposed replacement, “In God we trust.”
(1)Nuh Uh.
(0)
